Resistance 3 highlights where the PS3 user experience goes wrong

Playing the sublime Resistance 3 for the first time proved to be a frustrating …

Resistance 3 is one of the best games of the year, and it has been highly anticipated. I know when I received my copy I did what gamers all over the world will do: hastened to play it! And that's when it stopped me dead in my tracks: the Resistance 3 setup feels like an unintentional guided tour of some of the failings of the PlayStation 3, both in terms of hardware and online user interface.

The first thing I was asked to do after putting the disc into the system was download a 600+ MB update. Depending on how unknown factors come together, this update could take just a few minutes or, in my case, nearly 60 minutes. (Sony's problems with its update servers are well known and, to our knowledge, there has yet to be a technical explanation for why something as simple as a local proxy can boost speeds dramatically.)

With my patch downloaded, I was now ready to install this game and get down to the very important business of killing Chimera. Instead I was informed that I didn't have enough free space on my 60GB system. The multiple (mandatory) installations for past games have caught up with me, and I couldn't help but feel somewhat frustrated—these were mostly games I wouldn't have installed anyway.

So I had no choice but to manage the space on my system. I deleted a few older games to make room, feeling a bit irritated that, were I to want to play one of them in the future, I would have to sit through the mandatory installations again. Understand that I don't have an issue with installing games by choice; I do find it frustrating and a point against Sony's PS3 experience, however, that a 60GB HDD is not sufficient for managing a library of game installs. It most certainly is on other platforms.

Warning: language not safe for work

In the not too distant past, there were great debates about console gaming and whether "DVD-9 was enough" or not. DVD-9 is, of course, the format used by Microsoft's Xbox 360 for games, a format designed to stuff 8.5GB data onto an ancient DVD. This looks paltry next to Blu-ray's 25GB capacity, but that advantage seems to have largely disappeared in the face of Sony's mandatory installations. It's nice not having to swap out, say, 2 or 3 DVDs during an install, but I'd much prefer no install at all.

At this point, it had been well over an hour of updates, installations, and loading screens before I finally got to play the game. I actually played another videogame on another system to pass the time. But hey, single player here I come! Sadly, I would soon learn that my travails were not complete.

Online is even better

"Last night, I quit playing Resistance 3 so I could download a firmware update so I could open the PlayStation Store so I could redeem an online pass so I could play Resistance 3," Jim Sterling wrote in a rage-choked rant on Game Front.

You can't just play Resistance 3 online just because you've installed the game! First you have exit the game, head to the PlayStation Store, and learn that you have to install a firmware update. Then, after it has applied, you get to return to the Store and input a one-time use code to unlock online play (take that, buyers of used games!).

"I'm just as bad as everybody else—still buying games for sixty dollars apiece, still putting online codes in like a good little puppet, no matter how damaging to the industry's long-term success I think they are," Sterling wrote. "I know online passes are bad. I know lengthy firmware updates are annoying. I know mandatory installations that can take over forty-five minutes are utterly inexcusable. Chances are good that you know as well. Yet we're still swallowing it."

Before I returned to PC gaming, console friends would tell me that I was in for a headache: driver updates, bad parts, patches to download, etc. But I could have hand-built a new gaming PC in the time it took Resistance 3 to patch and install itself to the point where it was playable.

It's probably not a big surprise to hear, then, that many game PR houses treat PS3 copies of multiplatform games like cooties.

Anyone who writes about games professionally has had a PR person apologize to them because there were "only PS3 copies" left to send to the press post-release. The major reason for this has been described above: game journos have a never-end queue of games to review, and losing time installing a game is a hard pill to swallow, especially when you're on a deadline. Of course, in the case of PS3-only titles like Resistance 3, it's not relevant, except to note how these install issues manifest themselves even in something as minor as game PR.

The issues that led to what could be a multi-hour wait to play a single game can be tied to the hardware, the software, the publisher, the developer, and everyone else involved with the design of the PlayStation 3 experience. When someone buys your game, they are giving you two of the most precious things they have: their money and their time. It's time for Sony to begin to take both things more seriously.

312 Reader Comments

I don't care. I went from being a PC gamer to owning a PC because of the long term cost of keeping physical hardware up to date (plus having a Blu-ray player that also surfs the web, shows pics, vids, and music sounded too good to pass up). The updates are ok from my user experience, because I can't compare it to x-box (never played with one). However, it seems like my PS3 should be able to download patches and system updates in the background without needing to update it through the sometimes annoying (to me) download/install screen. I know it's a limitation of early Blu-Ray players (like my first gen PS3) that it's slower to read information off the disc than an old DVD. It can't stream textures as fast or something. I think it's worth it because the exclusive games look incredible.

If Sony allows this through Playstaton Plus, that's a crime. Bite me Sony. Developers should make workarounds, like allow us to at least browse concept art, play a movie, something to help us pass the time. Although I usually iron some shirts or something. No big deal overall.

"Last night, I quit playing Resistance 3 so I could download a firmware update so I could open the PlayStation Store so I could redeem an online pass so I could play Resistance 3"

No. Fuck you. That is not how it works. You notice that you require the firmware update FIRST, install it and THEN you start playing online. How can you not notice that you're not connected to the PSN?

Developers should make workarounds, like allow us to at least browse concept art, play a movie, something to help us pass the time. Although I usually iron some shirts or something. No big deal overall.

Play inFamous. They made it possible to play the entire intro of the game during the installation. AMAZING solution.

Developers should make workarounds, like allow us to at least browse concept art, play a movie, something to help us pass the time. Although I usually iron some shirts or something. No big deal overall.

Play inFamous. They made it possible to play the entire intro of the game during the installation. AMAZING solution.

Good call. In R3 there is the intro movie and the first 5 to 10 minutes of the campaign is basically zero action, so I would have thought this would have been plenty of time to do the install in the background.

Their implementation of everything sucks. I don't understand why everything downloadable requires a separate installation step, during which the console becomes unusable, while the Xbox has no such thing.

I really do like the PS3 but the date process is insanely annoying. It is not bad for me if it is connected by LAN but stringing patch cable down the stairs and though the house is just absurd when it can manage good transfer rates for movies and other files over the network. It can literally take all night for an update over wireless I will likely get an Xbox if I see a good sale and just buy the exclusive titles on the PS3.

I really do like the PS3 but the date process is insanely annoying. It is not bad for me if it is connected by LAN but stringing patch cable down the stairs and though the house is just absurd when it can manage good transfer rates for movies and other files over the network. It can literally take all night for an update over wireless I will likely get an Xbox if I see a good sale and just buy the exclusive titles on the PS3.

Just keep in mind that unless you plan to shell out an extra US$100 for the wireless adapter, you'll still have the same cable-down-the-stairs issue (unless that new kinect-bundled 360 finally added a wireless NIC, not sure if it did, as my original Elite works fine, since I don't use it often enough to risk a RROD; my PS3 and my PC get the most use, with MHTri on my Wii a close runner up; game would've been so much better if it were PS3 like it was supposed to be, though).

The video was not even remotely funny or even genuine. Other than that, wow. I guess the the only explanation for mandatory installs is the user experience would be so bad that they have to install often used files to shorten loading times - isn't the bluray drive quite slow on the PS3?

Experiences like this, which mirror exactly my own experience with the PS3 (and my brother's) make me wonder how, exactly, console gaming is so superior to PC gaming. Back in the day, when you just popped in the cart or disc and had at it, it was a perfectly reasonable argument. Now that console gamers have to put up with at least 70% of the same frustration as PC gamers (with an additional 40%, as the "Only Does Everything" becomes "Only Does What We Say"), it's got no teeth. Give me back my SNES and get off my lawn!

Wasn't that bugged about it, if you have waited years cant you wait 20 minutes more for a game do it's install thing ?

They could do without the mandatory install but at a cost of visual fidelity (Rage faces same issue) so do you want the game to look less pretty ?

The one thing Insomniac did do right was retell the events from the first Resistance games but they cut it too short not going into enough detail or covering the PSP games and really that would have been a perfect opportunity to do something useful while the game installs to HDD in the background.

OnLive is really the solution to all of this, not even PC's get close to the instant on that it delivers in games like the old days in consoles.

Well, add another 15 minutes every 2 months if you only update your firmware when you buy new games, huzzah!At least NOW everybody believes what A LOT of gamers have been clamoring about for the past 4 years. GT 5 wasn't enough, Fifa 2010 and 2011 weren't enough, MGS4 wasn't enough, nooo... it took Resistance 3 and a voice like Jim Sterling to finally acknowledge the issue for many gamers to stop being apologists.

Many thanks to Jim Sterling for shutting up the fanboys complaints.As for the opinionatedness fanboys and tools, well ... shucks, I can't seem to find the polite word for that... aw yeah, I remembered, it's "stupid". Dear fanboys, you're being left behind by these companies on your money and time.

PS: I do not own an Xbox 360, but I DO own a PS3 (just in case that wasn't clear enough) ad have a decent-sized library of games for it, old and new. Only 15% of the titles have ever been "plug-and-play". 85% have asked for firmware updates, patches, etc. Also, imagine having to lug around a 6 Kg PS3 (fat 80 GB one) to a friend with an internet connection.

You do realize that this is standard across the board, right? It's the first layer of copy protection, games requiring a particular firmware version of later. The PS3 does it, the 360 does it, the PSP does it, and I think even the DS / 3DS might do it as well (haven't noticed on these, as I don't buy many games for them, and I tend to update when updates are available, anyway.) When a firmware update _is_ needed to play the game, it's also included on the disk. That is to say, the firmware version a game requires will always be the latest version as of the time it goes gold master, and that version will always be included on the disk. At least this is the case with the PSP and the PS3, I couldn't speak to the 360, it doesn't get that much use, and I've always had reliable internet since I got it, so I never ran into a case of not already having the necessary update to run the game.

Nope, not on the 360. The update cycle is way too slow for the firmware being that tough a line of defense for the DRM. And, looking at the 360's crypto especially when compared to the Wii or PS3 (which is particulalry informative, since the 360 and PS3 use essentially the same hardware), the 360 is a cryptographically well designed system (if you can find a video for this talk: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/Fah ... 87.en.html I can highly recommend it), so that constant firmware updates aren't necessary, as with the Wii or PS3. You know, like MS is knowing what they are doing when developing integrated systems, together with running their "Trusted Computing" initiative...

The ge0h0t (or however it's spelled) hack was possible since Sony reused a random number in different stages of the boot process. Which is a beginner's mistake (it's comparable in level of impact to the Debian/Ubuntu OpenSSL debacle from a few years back).

The video was not even remotely funny or even genuine. Other than that, wow. I guess the the only explanation for mandatory installs is the user experience would be so bad that they have to install often used files to shorten loading times - isn't the bluray drive quite slow on the PS3?

Yes, as I mentioned in my earlier post (and there's a really good full article about it, comparing blu-ray and DVD read speeds and _how_ they read; believe the article was on gamespot, and I can't pull it up here at work, because DoD blocks game-related sites), the PS3's blu-ray drive is only a 2x drive, which has a constant read speed approximately equal to the slowest read speed of a 12x DVD-ROM. At 4x, the blu-ray drive would read constantly at approximately the max read speed of a 12x DVD, and at 8x, it leaves 12x DVD in the dust by several kilometers. The reason I specify "slowest" and "fastest" read speeds for DVD is that (as noted in the previous post, and in the article I mentioned) DVD is uses constant angular velocity, which results in data being read at different speeds, depending on whether it's physically stored closer to the center of the disk, or closer to the edge (higher linear velocity at the edge, so faster read speeds). Blu-ray, on the other hand, is constant linear velocity, which means it will read at the same speed regardless of where the data is physically stored on the disk.

SchildConstruct wrote:

sporkwitch wrote:

You do realize that this is standard across the board, right? It's the first layer of copy protection, games requiring a particular firmware version of later. The PS3 does it, the 360 does it, the PSP does it, and I think even the DS / 3DS might do it as well (haven't noticed on these, as I don't buy many games for them, and I tend to update when updates are available, anyway.) When a firmware update _is_ needed to play the game, it's also included on the disk. That is to say, the firmware version a game requires will always be the latest version as of the time it goes gold master, and that version will always be included on the disk. At least this is the case with the PSP and the PS3, I couldn't speak to the 360, it doesn't get that much use, and I've always had reliable internet since I got it, so I never ran into a case of not already having the necessary update to run the game.

Nope, not on the 360. The update cycle is way too slow for the firmware being that tough a line of defense for the DRM. And, looking at the 360's crypto especially when compared to the Wii or PS3 (which is particulalry informative, since the 360 and PS3 use essentially the same hardware), the 360 is a cryptographically well designed system (if you can find a video for this talk: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/Fah ... 87.en.html I can highly recommend it), so that constant firmware updates aren't necessary, as with the Wii or PS3. You know, like MS is knowing what they are doing when developing integrated systems, together with running their "Trusted Computing" initiative...

The ge0h0t (or however it's spelled) hack was possible since Sony reused a random number in different stages of the boot process. Which is a beginner's mistake (it's comparable in level of impact to the Debian/Ubuntu OpenSSL debacle from a few years back).

It's not about the effectiveness of it as a copy protection scheme, but about an easily used hurdle to pass. One of the first thing most hacks will have you do is firmware rollbacks, and that's how it acts to discourage it, by making it more difficult or impossible to continue using it as a gaming system, or to be able to play online.

As to 360 specifically, I'll have to test when I get home from this deployment (Gears 3 is sitting at the post office in germany waiting for me), but even with their slower update schedule, I'd be amazed if new games for 360 didn't also require the latest firmware as of their going master. It's simply such an easy thing to implement, and it does provide a hurdle (not to mention, it's a method to get stability and functionality updates pushed to non-networked systems) when it comes to piracy, even if it is relatively easy to bypass. I can't get angry about this type of DRM, because unlike most PC DRM, its negative impact on the legitimate customers is almost zero.

As to trusted computing, don't even get me started on that bullshit. I don't know about you, but I don't like governments or corporations having a remote killswitch on my equipment. And before you bring up the argument of PS3 removing OtherOS, no one forced you to install the update that did it, and they made it clear what it would do. "Trusted Computing," previously known as "Palladium," doesn't give you a choice, it's just an outright backdoor into your hardware and everything on it. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been used in malware yet (only thing I can think of is that malware has moved on from incapacitating a system, and is now more about collecting your info and spreading, to try to get financial and other monetarily useful information).

I can only laugh, really. The way I see it, console gamers spend £300 on a crippled PC and £600 on a monitor for it, while a PC gamers spends £600 on the a value-added games console and £300 on a more than capable TV. With WoW being patched while the game runs (and I can see this being possible with other games), I can't see why anyone would entertain the console concept anymore.

when is then last time you played a pc game that didn't need an install

At least Steam almost always offers non-interfering pre-loading.

>>or updates? steam updates all the time.

Those usually finish downloading before I even get to the library section to pick a game.

It's hard to love microsoft but the 360 does so much right. Bought La Noire two days after release on the ps3. Download/install city out of the shrink wrap. Haven't touched it in at least 6 weeks. Will there be a long update? Bought MvC3 on day one. Was playing in about 30 seconds. Haven't played it in at least as long as La Noire. Betting there's no update.

Ben, that sounds like a pretty bad experience, particularly in light of the fact that this is on a console; long touted to be hassle free, pop it in and play. I've got an xbox, and while I admittedly don't do any multiplayer on it, it's largely been true.

----------"Before I returned to PC gaming, console friends would tell me that I was in for a headache: driver updates, bad parts, patches to download, etc. But I could have hand-built a new gaming PC in the time it took Resistance 3 to patch and install itself to that point where it was playable. "----------

And I'm sure you know that most of the time, this is never a really big problem. And even if it is, that "problem" also comes with some very real bonuses, such as beiing able to tweak & customise to your hearts delight in how your game runs and how good it looks. The largest time sink is the graphics card driver updates, which any gamer should be up to date on in any event. We all, on PC, run into the occassional annoyances with games encountering problems here and there but considering the sheer amount of hardware out there they have to be made for, the whole process works surprisingly well; for the most part.

I've got 20 games on Steam that have all installed properly and played within a few minutes (barring the digital download time). The last game I bought external to Steam was Dragon Age Origins, which took 15 minutes to install and ran perfectly well.

in fact, the last game i ever recall (and that's a lot since then) that gave me so much headache was Divine Divinity. It had large amounts of missing and/or corrupt files and no amount of uninstall and reinstall could resolve it. I spent a whole weekend messing around with my system and the game settings and still to this day, i could never figure out exactly what I did that got it to work. It was the first and only time I ever felt like getting a refund.

For multiplayer/online game and.or components, PC gaming cannot be beat; even with all the variations needed to account for. It's been largely honed to a fine art and the proliferation of MMORPG and a decade of time spent in the oven has meant, most PC games work out the gate, even if a patch is required - unless of course, because of developers coding badly... bad devs (a certain zombie game comes to mind)!

edite: IIRC Divine Divinity may have also had some awkward copy protection in it. Too long to remember if that was one of the issue.

See we have this thing called USB and it allows you to expand the storage on your PS3 simply by plugging in one cable. Its amazing!!!!!

sporkwitch wrote:

You cannot use USB-connected storage devices for game saves or install data, you can only copy things to it;

Exactly. The writer has a full HD and he needs to install a game so he can play it to review it. He is not playing all of the other games all at the same time. Move the stuff thats taking up all the room and put it on the USB drive. Simple. Done reviewing, delete the install and move the other stuff back. Of course I would not know anything about this since my PS3 has a 750 Gig HD in it. Proprietary HD setups for consoles can suck it.

jozero wrote:

My PS3 is the worst piece of electronics I own. In our place its sole purpose for the last 5 months is as a $300 DVD player.

You are aware that it plays Blu-Ray movies to aren't you? Also, you can stuff a big honkin HD in it, load up all your music and digital movies and it makes a fantastic home theater PC. To cheap for the HD, just share the music on your computer and then stream it from your PC to your PS3. Its super easy!

Netflix movies, Hulu, MLB.tv streaming of live games, NHL Gamecenter Live of streaming live matches and its the worst piece of electronics that you own. My my my you sure are awfully fickle aren't you. Why do you still own it? No, wait...better than that...why did you buy it to begin with? When I think that something in my entertainment system is suddenly the worst piece of electronics that I own, it usually does not stick around for another couple weeks, much less 5 months.

Am I the only one who's bought a PSN title, downloaded it, installed it, and then on launch had to run an update? I just downloaded the game from your server! You seriously didn't give me the latest version and I have to patch it?

I like my PS3, but I've gotta agree with Ben; it's a real downer to constantly start your user experience with something new you're excited about with all this waiting and crap.

Edit: That said, I voted "I'd like to see improvement, but I'm not concerned" because I honestly don't care even 1/10th as much as Mr. Kuchera.

Nope. I got both Little Big Planet and InFamous from the Welcome Back promotion, over 10gigs of download and still a required update. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And who was that mouth-breather in the video linked? No game is worth that much rage (even if it was jokingly made). Just go do something else while the updates are applied. It's a ridiculous position for Sony to put themselves in, but it's the PS3 reality. No sense getting that worked up over it.

See we have this thing called USB and it allows you to expand the storage on your PS3 simply by plugging in one cable. Its amazing!!!!!

sporkwitch wrote:

You cannot use USB-connected storage devices for game saves or install data, you can only copy things to it;

Exactly. The writer has a full HD and he needs to install a game so he can play it to review it. He is not playing all of the other games all at the same time. Move the stuff thats taking up all the room and put it on the USB drive. Simple. Done reviewing, delete the install and move the other stuff back. Of course I would not know anything about this since my PS3 has a 750 Gig HD in it. Proprietary HD setups for consoles can suck it.

You cannot copy game install data (the main thing that takes up space) to an external device, you can only copy photos, videos, music, and game _save_ files. You can also download files that are not supported by the PS3 directly to external media (or at least you used to be able to; I haven't had a need to try since the summer of 2007).

His complaint is that he's forced to _delete_ game install data, and if he ever chooses to go back and play those games again, he'll have to reinstall them, repeating this entire procedure all over again. Personally, I don't find this to be a big deal, even my 60GB is plenty to keep 10+ games installed and ready to go, which is more than sufficient to cover the games I'm swapping in and out regularly. That being said, he could bypass that one annoyance by simply dropping the US$50 on a 500-750GB 2.5" SATA drive and replacing the one in the system.

Am I the only one who's bought a PSN title, downloaded it, installed it, and then on launch had to run an update? I just downloaded the game from your server! You seriously didn't give me the latest version and I have to patch it?

I like my PS3, but I've gotta agree with Ben; it's a real downer to constantly start your user experience with something new you're excited about with all this waiting and crap.

Edit: That said, I voted "I'd like to see improvement, but I'm not concerned" because I honestly don't care even 1/10th as much as Mr. Kuchera.

Nope. I got both Little Big Planet and InFamous from the Welcome Back promotion, over 10gigs of download and still a required update. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And who was that mouth-breather in the video linked? No game is worth that much rage (even if it was jokingly made). Just go do something else while the updates are applied. It's a ridiculous position for Sony to put themselves in, but it's the PS3 reality. No sense getting that worked up over it.

This is not normal, but rather it is related to the fact that you're talking about full disk-based games, not PSN titles. PSN titles replace the entire copy stored on the server when they're updated, and when you patch, they simply redownload themselves, with very few exceptions. Full games, on the other hand, are basically an ISO + launcher, and must be patched normally. From a cost and logistics standpoint, it's probably the most viable option for Sony.

Step 2Click "Games" in the horizontal Xross Media Bar (XMB) at the top of the screen.

Step 3Place the storage device in the USB slot. According to the PS3 official website, a Memory Stick, SD Memory Card, CompactFlash or a USB mass storage device may be used to copy game data. Any disc media formats such as CD-ROM cannot be used.

Step 4Scroll in the vertical XMB menu to highlight the game you wish to copy data for. Click that game, using the triangle button on the PS3 controller.

Step 5Click "Copy" when the option appears on-screen. This will copy the selected game data onto your external hard drive.

All Games and Media (Full System Backup)Step 1Access the PlayStation 3 main menu, leaving the game disc drive empty.

Step 2Insert the storage device into the USB slot.

Step 3Click "System" in the horizontal Xross Media Bar (XMB) at the top of the screen.

Step 4Select the "Settings" option, followed by "System Settings."

Step 5Select "Backup Utility," followed by "Backup."

Step 6Select the storage device you wish to use from the list that appears on-screen and click the triangle button on the controller to confirm. This will copy all of your game files and other PS3 saved media to the storage device.

Being in the military and deployed I can confirm atleast game saves (and Im 95% certain game install data) can be copied to an external drive. Thats how I take all my game saves with me when I am deployed. You just have to login to the next PS3 you want to copy it to and your good to go.

And remember that Journalist will feel the pain more because it is work instead of just fun.

I see some counter with

(A) If you can wait 2 years what us another 20 minutes etc.

(B) Time management, just start and go do something else etc.

Does not apply if it is work and add to it the element of deadline. So definitely a fun experience will quickly turn into nightmare of counting the clock tick. Just watch the You Tube Video. One after another update, just hilarious.

The other thing is that. If someone like Ben or other journalist/writer complain and make a large brouhaha about this issue. More power to the complaint resulting to more chances for big company like Sony to listen and make changes.

So it is for the good of everyone. But perhaps with detrimental (mental) effect to (Sony) fanboys? Keep the fight on (or is it Finish the fight?).

Mandatory installations are a joke. As much as I hate Microsoft, this is something they've done well; games will run from the disk or, if you prefer, you can install them to your machine for the performance boost and quieter gaming. That said, due to the smaller size of HD-DVD's, multi-disk games will still require you to swap disks to play on XBox 360, which is a huge pain.

If a game isn't playable from the disk, then it hasn't been developed properly. All it should need is a disk-cache to speed up loading, and maybe options for partial installation (load common game assets), or full-installation as recommendations, if you want to do those things. Mandatory installations however are a joke, and no-one should have to endure the amount of stupidity.

Likewise, making online-play a one-use code? What in the hell is that? Bonus content, sure, but one of the game's bigger features? Is there no end to what companies will do to the content that we're supposedly paying £40 or more for?

Strange, on my Xbox, my reaction to a game patch usually is "ah nice, they're still working on it to improve it", never a "oh damn an update I have to wait for".

I only recently bought my XBox, in the middle of the Sony hack story, for one game only - MK9. Yes the PS3 had extra fighters, but with that amount of bad press for the PSN? I briefly considered it for the integrated BR-player, but most of my friends have an XBox, so the choice was obvious. I've always been a hardcore PC-gamer, especially for FPS games, the only console I had was a Wii, which is mostly used at parties. With this background, I was positively surprised by the XBox experience, how well Microsoft nailed it. The interface might be a bit cluttered, but overall it was very positive. I have bought more games for it than I would have expected, also games I normally would have gotten myself for PC in the past, even if the XBox version was more expensive (best example is Deus Ex HR). I can't say anything about the PS3 experience, but from reading the experiences here, I know I would have abandoned or sold it.

One of the sources of this patch-hell on the PS3 and not on the XBox is I suspect that Microsoft has very strict rules for developers when it comes to game-patches. They have size-limits, have to fix substantial bugs and cannot change artwork etc and the patches have to go trough a lengthy screening process. This has it's serious downsides too, balancing of online play through a patch for example is not reason enough for Microsoft to allow a patch, but apparently - the reasoning is in favor of the user experience.

Sony on the other hand allows a game developer to patch as much as he likes, for whatever reason he likes. I can't help thinking that this policy is a large part of the problem, and that XBox versions will be better tested, since patching the game afterwards is going to be a painful experience for the developer. On the PS3, they could fix it easily after it ships. Sure - the developer is to blame here too, but Sony is certainly responsible for the problem too. That - and the terrible state of the PSN... I'd rather pay for my XBox gold account (which I think is a rip-off) than go trough all the PSN network issues. I mean: mandatory firmware update where I have to accept new policies which take away my right to sue them, or my console would stop working? Are you kidding me? I'd sue them for exactly this.

Funny how you say that Resistance 3 is "one of the best games of the year" and yet instead of an actual review about the game the only mention we get (apart from a small preview a while back) is in a partially misdirected anti Sony piece... I get it, negativity is better for comment generation eh? Just seems the site is becoming more of an Arswhingica these days :-/

There are some valid points you make, though as an EU PS3 user I just can't relate to most of the issues mentioned. Just think that maybe "one of the best games of the year" might you know, deserve a review??

For the record I'm an all console + PC gamer so not coming from a fanboy position. Just seems to be a distinct lack of journalistic balance going on where Sony is concerned. Almost to EDGE levels these days.

It sucks that consoles are taking on the negative aspects of PCs as well… I guess by the time I get a console (been planning it for years, always end up spending money on my PC instead for various reasons) I’ll feel right at home, heh.

To go online - you need to have the latest game code. - This is true of xbox games as well.

60GB? You say you could've built a PC waiting for an update - so what's stopped you upgrading the hard drive like everyone else? Perhaps you would miss that 250% mark up MS has with their proprietary drives.

I read today that Rage takes up 22GB across 3 xbox discs. That may not be mandatory - but it was recommended by the developer. And if you don't have 22GB, you can install one disc at a time. Wow - you just need to delete it before installing the second disc. That's gonna be a great break in gameplay.

It is nice to hear that your original 2007 PS3 is still running - how many 360's have you been through?

It's not about the effectiveness of it as a copy protection scheme, but about an easily used hurdle to pass. One of the first thing most hacks will have you do is firmware rollbacks, and that's how it acts to discourage it, by making it more difficult or impossible to continue using it as a gaming system, or to be able to play online.

Interesting to see that the 360 needs a chip to play pirated games, then.

Quote:

As to 360 specifically, I'll have to test when I get home from this deployment (Gears 3 is sitting at the post office in germany waiting for me), but even with their slower update schedule, I'd be amazed if new games for 360 didn't also require the latest firmware as of their going master. It's simply such an easy thing to implement, and it does provide a hurdle (not to mention, it's a method to get stability and functionality updates pushed to non-networked systems) when it comes to piracy, even if it is relatively easy to bypass.

You only need to update the firmware if it's bugged. And the 360 crypto system is not really exploitable as of now.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I don't like governments or corporations having a remote killswitch on my equipment.

You got proof of this, of course.

Quote:

"Trusted Computing," previously known as "Palladium," doesn't give you a choice, it's just an outright backdoor into your hardware and everything on it.

The difference between this PS/3 fiasco and the normal PC fiasco - is that there is a reasonable expectation that the patching will actually work on the PS/3. On the PC its more like try this new video driver or patch and it MIGHT work and then you wait a few weeks for the next one and see what happens. Or as what happened to me about a year or so ago, I updated my video driver and it hosed my machine so badly that I had to go back to a previous restore point - even just reinstalling the older video driver would not work.

I don't own a PS/3; but I have noticed a constant complaining about this issue and its certainly magnified for "journalists" when you have to install so many games. I am putting "journalists" in quotes not to be snarky but because most video game "journalism" is in fact well-though-out comments, observations, and reviews as opposed to serious journalism.

As long as you don't plan on going online, not a single of all those updates are mandatory or forced.You can refuse all of them (just press O on the update prompt) , and play instantly.Anyone who writes about games professionally should not insult his audience by lying about that or pretending to be dumb enough to not realize the optionnal status of those updates.

If you plan on going online, the only update sony is responsible for is the firmware one (a really annoying one), for all the others, including the initial installation, blame the devs.And also, anyone who writes about games professionally should not review games without applying any review-day-available patchs. it's a pain, it's the job.

In the end, yes, waiting is fucking annoying, no need to blatantly lie (as in mandatory that are not or dev's faults that are not the manufacter's) about it.

How is this a Sony issue and not the fault of the developer?They produced the code. They require a full download patch rather than specific updates. If the game on the disc requires a 600MB download to update then the fault is with the developer, not Sony.